netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/8] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 Jan 2021 23:37:29 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jhs@...atatu.com" <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "jiri@...nulli.us" <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com" <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        "intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        "anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "mkubecek@...e.cz" <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/8] ethtool: Add support for frame preemption

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:44:45PM -0800, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> This is still an RFC because two main reasons, I want to confirm that
> this approach (per-queue settings via qdiscs, device settings via
> ethtool) looks good, even though there aren't much more options left ;-)

I don't want to bother you too much, but a consequence of putting the
per-priority settings into tc-taprio is that those will spill over into
other qdiscs too that have nothing to do with TSN, for whomever will
need frame preemption without time-aware scheduling (and there are
reasons to want that).
So could we see in the next version the frame preemption bits added to
tc-mqprio as well? I just want to make sure that we run this by the tc
maintainers and that the idea gets their informed consent before we end
up in a position where frame preemption with time-aware scheduling is
done in one way, but frame preemption without time-aware scheduling is
done another way.
You should not need to change anything related to TC_SETUP_PREEMPT in
the igc driver, so it should be just code addition.